Author summary
0% 3 analyzed articles/videos 3,815 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Chiara Eisner results contain 41 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect , Appeal to Authority , and Hasty Generalization , with Confirmation Bias as the most egregious example at 8% saturation with 1,530 hits . Analysis detected 11,789 faulty-reasoning hits from 19,013 analyzed words across 3 articles, generating a BS Score of 1.5% and a BS Rank of 13% (5,452 of 6,244 authors). This Chiara Eisner is better (less manipulative) than 87.30% of the peer group. Chiara Eisner
Author details
Total words: 19,013
Article count: 3
Publications
Ranking context Position among analyzed authors
13% percentile 0 25 50 75 100 12.7% percentile 1.5% BS Score3 analyzed articles19K analyzed words
Reasoning profile Selected profile versus the sitewide rate
Highest rates Largest gaps
Shared scale 0–50%
0.0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Framing Effect Sitewide 26.9% Author 7.2% 7.2% Negativity Bias Sitewide 19.2% Author 4.7% 4.7% Appeal to Emotion Sitewide 15.9% Author 2.0% 2.0% Availability Heuristic Sitewide 9.1% Author 2.0% 2.0% Halo Effect Sitewide 6.7% Author 0.6% 0.6% Optimism Bias Sitewide 6.0% Author 0.5% 0.5% In-Group Bias Sitewide 6.9% Author 1.9% 1.9% Biased Writer Voice Sitewide 5.3% Author 0.5% 0.5% Anecdotal Sitewide 5.2% Author 0.8% 0.8% Overconfidence Bias Sitewide 4.6% Author 0.5% 0.5% Sitewide departure map Above the diagonal means this profile uses the pattern more often
0.0% 0.0% 10% 10% 20% 20% 30% 30% 40% 40% 50% 50% Framing Effect: Author 7.2%, sitewide 26.9% Negativity Bias: Author 4.7%, sitewide 19.2% Appeal to Emotion: Author 2.0%, sitewide 15.9% Appeal to Authority: Author 7.0%, sitewide 11.1% Availability Heuristic: Author 2.0%, sitewide 9.1% Hasty Generalization: Author 5.3%, sitewide 8.1% Confirmation Bias: Author 8.1%, sitewide 7.5% In-Group Bias: Author 1.9%, sitewide 6.9% Halo Effect: Author 0.6%, sitewide 6.7% Optimism Bias: Author 0.5%, sitewide 6.0% Biased Writer Voice: Author 0.5%, sitewide 5.3% Anecdotal: Author 0.8%, sitewide 5.2% Post Hoc (False Cause): Author 4.6%, sitewide 3.3% Overconfidence Bias: Author 0.5%, sitewide 4.6% Anchoring Bias: Author 0.7%, sitewide 4.0% Self-Serving Bias: Author 0.8%, sitewide 3.7% Fundamental Attribution Error: Author 1.0%, sitewide 2.7% Recency Bias: Author 0.7%, sitewide 2.7% Begging the Question: Author 2.6%, sitewide 1.7% Loss Aversion: Author 0.4%, sitewide 2.5% Bandwagon: Author 0.3%, sitewide 2.2% Status Quo Bias: Author 0.8%, sitewide 2.2% Ad Hominem: Author 1.6%, sitewide 2.2% Politically Left Leaning Bias: Author 0.9%, sitewide 2.0% Framing Effect Sitewide rate Author rate Analyzed articles and videos Sort by Most recent Article rank - best Article rank - worst